ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[The medical dissertation in Germany : A quantitative analysis of promotion regulations in medical faculties].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The doctoral regulations of the medical faculties in Germany : What has changed in the last 9 years?]Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of the doctoral regulations at the medical faculties in Germany.International journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Dental Academic Degrees in Germany Compared to the USA.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe medical dissertation represents an independently processed scientific project. In the field of medicine this has for many years displayed the basis for controversial discussions. The aim of the study presented here was to evaluate the prerequisites of all current promotion regulations in German medical faculties in order to develop a comparability on the basis of a scoring system.
methodAn independent analysis of all promotion regulations from German medical faculties for the year 2014 was carried out according to 12 primary outcome measures and a scoring system.
resultsThe average total score of promotion regulations at 37 German medical faculties was 57.2 points (SD ±9.5) out of a possible 100 scoring points. The highest scores with 72-85 points were achieved by 3 faculties and 5 achieved scores of only 42-45 points. The range of the different criteria tested was broad. While the written thesis, the review process, the examination requirements as well as the grading of the thesis were defined in all regulations, the introduction into good clinical practice, knowledge of methodology as well as a check for plagiarism only seem to play minor roles.
conclusionThe promotion regulations at German medical faculties show a great variation using the scoring system presented here for the first time. Standardized federal promotion regulations might help to establish a structured transparency as well as a national equality of opportunity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27356924What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.